Red 2

A good if not great success released back in 2010, Red was a good if not great summer-type blockbuster that earned almost $200 million worldwide. I liked it, a movie that was familiar but also really fun and action-packed. I can say I was pretty surprised to hear it was getting a sequel, but with all the duds out there, I wanted to give it a try, even if it was an unnecessary sequel. Here we go with 2013's Red 2.

Having survived the shady branches of the government trying to burn him (i.e. kill him), former C.I.A. operative Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) has moved onto a quieter life, moving in with his girlfriend and former customer service operator, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker). Well, it was a quieter life. Friend, fellow former agent and all-around kook Marvin Boggins (John Malkovich) has tracked Frank down and is seeking his help. Dating back to a mission they accomplished in the early 1980s, an internet leak (hello, WikiLeak!) links them to placing a nuclear bomb somewhere in Moscow. There's a catch. Supposedly, it's still there, and a rogue government agency that's "interested in national security" wants to not only find the bomb, but kill Frank, Marvin and anyone with any knowledge of the bomb. Bringing Sarah along to protect her -- even though she's excited to come along -- Frank and Marvin (and some other friends along the way) hit the road looking to save millions and exonerate themselves.

Above all else, this sequel and its predecessor are what movies supposed to be. They're not great, they don't rewrite the genre, and at times, they're too schizophrenic for its own good. What are they then? They're a whole lot of fun, whole lot of action and a whole lot of talent assembled in the cast. Director Dean Parisot follows the same formula as the original, giving his retired agents (RED stands for Retired, Extremely Dangerous) an impossible mission to accomplish and letting them do so in multiple exotic locations around the world. Originally based on a graphic novel, some scene transitions reflect its background, the characters and action turning to animation with a quick blur to the next location. Even though it's a little long at 116 minutes, things never slow down long enough for it to actually be boring.

The biggest reason for the success here is that the cast is clearly having a lot of fun. That doesn't always translate, but in here it is definitely a positive. We're talking a talented cast here, Willis, Louise-Parker, Malkovich and Helen Mirren all returning from the first movie. There is an easy-going, friendly charm that brings the movie past its familiar, action-packed roots, another layer to appreciate. Willis as the very capable Moses is his usual action hero, but with a spin, a quasi-nerdy homebody who is the polar opposite of what you'd think a cold-blooded C.I.A. agent would be. Malkovich and Mirren are the best parts of the movie, legitimizing the movie just by being there, but also committing to their parts and having some fun. Malkovich's possibly unhinged Marvin is a scene-stealer, always ranting about conspiracies and plots for evil....except he's usually right. Mirren too is perfectly cast as Victoria, a very ladylike older woman who's also capable of pulling out the big guns to get the job done, doing her job and doing it well. It's a great, fun trio to lead the way.

What I noticed with this sequel is its got some touches of Sylverster Stallone's Expendables movies. You have your core cast, but then you fill out the rest of the parts with as much talent as humanly possible, and in this case with a lot of fun parts. Also returning briefly from the first Red is Brian Cox as Ivan, a former and now current love of Mirren's Victoria, with newcomers Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, David Thewlis and Neal McDonough all joining the story. I don't want to give too much away about the characters, each of them holding some good twists as the story develops. My favorite supporting part went to alum of the G.I. Joe series Byung-hun Lee, playing the Han Cho Bai, the world's best hired killer, this time hired to take out Moses and crew. It's a really entertaining part that is both dark and fun, his past history with Frank Moses and the ever-evolving killer/victim relationship developing with some fun jokes.

If there's a weakness in the cast, it's Mary-Louise Parker as Sarah, Frank's thrill-seeking girlfriend. She loves Frank, but she's also bored to tears with their new quiet home life. I saw a lot of movies this year, and I don't know if there was a more annoying movie character out there. The script really tries to involve her in the action, her oddball personality blending "well" with the group, but it tries too hard. She's supposed to be cute and quirky and adorable, but any dialogue involving her relationship (and its problems) with Frank can be painful to watch. It provides some good moments as Malkovich and Mirren offer solutions, but it's just window dressing on some painful moments.

The action is another thing here that surprises me. Red 2 is pretty violent, but because it's PG-13, it isn't as effective as it could be. I'm not always a proponent of graphic violence for the sake of the violence, but the on-screen killings, gunfire and explosions are pretty hardcore at times, making me question if a harsher, blood-splattered version wouldn't be a tad bit better. The action manages to blend that schizo, over the top stylish action with the harder, grittier shootouts, never going too long between sequences. It does give the cast some funny moments during these hellacious firefights, Frank at one point asking Marvin "Is that dynamite in your pocket?" to which Marvin answers "Yeah, I was saving it for an emergency." It's that type of goofiness that plays well in this action comedy.

Long story short....if you liked the original, you'll enjoy this follow-up. Not a classic, but very watchable and a good popcorn movie.

Red 2 (2013): ***/****

Hitchcock

A movie about the making of a movie? Yeah, that doesn't necessarily sound that interesting. Oh, it's about all-time great director Alfred Hitchcock and one of his most respected classics? Okay, I'm a little more interested now. I was curious but skeptical going in, but I ended up liking 2012's Hitchcock a whole lot.

It is 1959 and highly respected Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) is coming off one of his best movies in terms of critical acclaim and audience success, North by Northwest. He's thrown for a loop when a reporter asks if he's going to retire now that's he 60 years old. Hitchcock vows his next film will be his best, a unique, doozy of a flick that audiences have never seen the likes of before. He finds his source in a novel called Psycho, a story loosely based on a real-life murderer. The subject matter is highly controversial, especially for a 1960 audience, and he struggles from the get-go to get the backing to produce his movie. Instead, he and his wife, Alma (Helen Mirren), fund the movie themselves, putting their own money up as backing. Casting, the actual filming, the studio, the censors, all will prove difficult in getting his film made, but it's also threatening to tear up his longtime marriage and partnership with Alma.

Released in 1960, Psycho was a film that earned lukewarm reviews but rabid audiences ate it up and helped it take off. It earned four Oscar nominations -- including Hitchcock for director, Janet Leigh for supporting actress --and quickly became a classic with a story and style that helped rewrite the thriller/horror genre. While it's remembered as a classic now, it had a checkered production as Hitchcock struggled to get backing (studio head Richard Portnow) while also doing battle with the censors (played by Kurtwood Smith) to make the movie that he wanted to make. From the infamous shower scene to the on-screen depiction of violence and sex, it is a gem of a film. Enough with background though. Is a movie about a movie interesting? Sometimes stories based on facts like this can play like reading an encyclopedia, but this one is interesting from the first scene right to the end.

I know there's a lot of great acting performances out there, but I'm genuinely surprised Hopkins did not earn a Best Actor nomination. He certainly deserved it. For one, he's almost unrecognizable as the famous English director. Looks are just one aspect of the performance, one that isn't a do or die moment. What's more important is that Hopkins becomes Hitchcock. The speech patterns, the personal, little mannerisms like holding his suit, pursing his lips, it all adds up to bring the puzzle pieces together. When Hopkins is on-screen, you can't take your eyes away from him. It also isn't a hero pic, portraying the director as he was, an incredibly talented if mercurial director who had tendencies that drove people up a wall at times. On the other hand, he was so talented those people had to put up with him at times.

The movie is significantly better for it. While it is about the making of Psycho, it's more so about how the making of Psycho affected Hitchcock's marriage to Alma Reville, played to perfection by Helen Mirren. While filming, Hitchcock had his quirks. He was always searching for that perfect platinum blonde (Kim Novak, Janet Leigh, Tippi Hedren), sometimes at the expense of paying Alma any attention at all, something that plays out as Alma works with smooth-talking screenwriter Whitfield Cook (Danny Huston). Neither Hitch (he at one points says "Hitch....never mind the cock") nor Alma is below playing some head games, testing their marriage when the pressure of making their movie successful is already wearing on them. We see Hitchcock in all his glory and flaws -- holding grudges, being a peeping tom among others -- but it adds to the movie, making it more than just a documentary. Hopkins and Mirren are two pros at the top of their games, great lead performances.

Working with director Sacha Gervasi is a very talented supporting cast beyond his two stars. I was worried some because the actors are playing....well, actors, and actors much of the audience will be familiar with. Scarlett Johansson is excellent playing Janet Leigh, the star of Psycho who bonds quickly with Hitchcock during filming, Jessica Biel also solid as Psycho co-star Vera Miles. Toni Collette is solid too as Peggy Robertson, Hitch's much-maligned assistant who is nonetheless someone the director counts on in a big way. Michael Stuhlbarg is very good as Lew Wasserman, Hitch's agent trying to help him through the troubled production. Michael Wincott is perfectly creepy as Ed Gein, the real-life inspiration for the Norman Bates character, James D'Arcy playing Anthony Perkins. In a cool storytelling device, Gein actually "talks" to Hitchcock, apparently giving the director inspiration in bringing his movie together.

I liked this movie. Good style, solid characterization and an inside look at a classic film. I loved the bookend storytelling too, Hitchcock actually talking to the audience much like he did in his Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV show. It's on-screen narration that works so well, setting things up. In a cool visual with the narration, the final scene gives a hint to Hitchcock's next film, another classic remembered fondly with Psycho. Just a good solid film overall, most memorable for Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren.

Hitchcock (2012): ***/****

Monsters University

Since Toy Story was first released in 1995, Pixar has become a cash cow among audiences. Children and families alike love the animated films, many of them becoming instant classics. That said, just about anyone who has seen a few of these movies no doubt has a favorite movie among the bunch. It's like picking pizza...even the bad ones are still good, but for me, one of my personal favorites has always been 2001's Monsters, Inc. How then can you go wrong with a prequel, 2013's Monsters University?

Ever since he was a young, little monster, Mike Wazowski (voice of Billy Crystal) has wanted one thing more than anything else. He wants to go to Monsters University and get his degree in Scaring, hoping to ultimately become one of the all-time great scarers. Mike eventually does get into MU, devoting himself to learning the ins and outs, every little thing he can about becoming the best monster he can be. He meets another freshman, James "Sully" Sullivan (voice of John Goodman) who seems to get by on his family name and a natural ability to scare. The two freshmen become fierce rivals, but when they get on the wrong side of some of the school administration, they have to team up. Can Mike, Sully and a handful of members of a nerdy fraternity on campus work together to win the famous Scare Games?

Made 12 years after the original, 'University' gets at least a partial pass just because it's fun to see these characters we love back again for more. It's great to see Mike and Sully, see how they met and eventually end up at Monsters, Inc. where we saw them in the first movie. It's cool to see the introduction of some other characters we've met prior, not to mention a solid list of other characters we're meeting for the first time. Thankfully though, director Dan Scanlon doesn't go for the status quo. Is another Monsters movie even necessary? Over a decade later....no, not particularly so Scanlon comes up with a gimmick that ends up working really well; the prequel. Instead of some retread sequel, we get an enjoyable, worthwhile prequel. It sounds obvious to give credit where it's due, but it felt refreshing to see an original prequel rather than a well-worn, comfortable (if dull) sequel. Point to you, Mr. Scanlon.

As is the case with all the Pixar movies I've seen, the voice casting is impeccable again. The pairing of Billy Crystal and John Goodman as Mike and Sully is pretty perfect. Crystal's higher-pitched, almost nasally voice at times is a natural fit with Goodman's deeper, almost baritone voice. Also, seeing them as enemies rather than friends is a cool, surprising twist. The visual doesn't hurt either; Mike a small, gangly green monster with one enormous eye while Sully looks like a teddy bear on steroids, immense and tall with blue fur and pink polka dots to go with his horns. Forcing the duo to work together was a nice touch as well, giving the story a bit of a lesson for its younger members of audiences without being really obvious or overly heavy-handed. LISTEN to the MESSAGE! It never feels like that. Mike with his stubborn edge and thirst for more, Sully with his natural ability and self-confidence, it's a monster match made in Heaven.

The rest of the cast in the voice department doesn't disappoint either. Returning (pre-returning?) from 'Inc.' is Steve Buscemi as Randall, Mike's roommate who can turn himself invisible and hasn't quite created that mean, evil streak we see years later. Helen Mirren is a welcome addition to the cast as Dean Hardscrabble, the legendary dean of Monsters University who comes to work against both Mike and Sully with Alfred Molina as Professor Knight, the teacher in Scaring 101. Nathan Fillion is a solid choice to play Johnny Worthington, the All-American college guy and head of the fraternity that's always the coolest on campus. Also look and listen for the voice talents of John Krasinski, Tyler Labine, Aubrey Plaza, Bonnie Hunt, Bill Hader, Bobby Moynihan and John Ratzenberger as the Abominable Snowman in supporting parts.

The best thing to come out of this 2013 prequel though is the handful of characters we meet at Oozma Kappa, the nerdy, disrespected fraternity Mike and Sully are forced to join to be eligible for the Scare Games. The group includes Don (Joel Murray), a 40-something salesman who went back to school for a new job, Squishy (Peter Sohn), a nerdy, quiet youngster looking for friends, Terry (Dave Foley) and Terri (Sean Hayes), a two-head monster, one who wants to dance and the other to study, and Art (scene-stealing Charlie Day), the goofy, off-the-wall monster with an odd past who also looks like a Muppet. Obviously, part of the appeal from the OK Fraternity comes from their physical appearance which proves difficult to describe, but check out the visual HERE. The genuine friendship, the bonding, this key introduction of the OK characters goes a long way and for the better, great additions to the story.

So we've made it this far, and I haven't really mentioned the visual here other than the appearance of the many different monsters. Pixar did it again, producing and making an incredibly visual film, full of color and excitement, deep and rich to the point some shots look like paintings. Mostly though, reviews for Pixar films could be done quickly and capably. It's good -- sometimes really good -- and you will no doubt get some really solid laughs and enjoyment out of it. 'University' isn't on par with the original, but it's a worthy addition to the Pixar archives for sure. A very solid prequel to a classic. The Pixar short before the movie, The Blue Umbrella, is okay but nothing special.

Monsters University (2013): ***/****   

2010

I admitted it. I didn't "get" 1968's 2001: A Space Odyssey, not by a long shot. Crazy visuals, light on story, and it didn't live up to the high expectations I went in with. But ah, there's a bright spot! A sequel! Go figure, I'm usually not a fan of sequels, but I had to give it a chance so here goes with 1984's 2010.

It's been nine years since the sudden and mysterious disappearance of the U.S. spaceship Discovery, and Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) still struggles with what happened. In charge of the mission that went deadly awry, Floyd was blamed for the debacle, but he may have a chance to redeem himself. American efforts are being made to investigate, sending a second ship to Jupiter and its moons (where Discovery disappeared), but he is approached by Russian agencies who are ahead of schedule and will get to Jupiter first. Undertaking a risky, even suicidal mission, Floyd and two other Americans (John Lithgow and Bob Balaban) join the Russian space expedition. What secrets do the moons, Jupiter, the Discovery and maybe space itself hold for the astronauts?

Highly respected and regarded as an all-time classic, Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey is far from a traditional movie. In fact, it's everything non-traditional about modern films. From director and writer Peter Hyams, '2010' is similar in its story matter and characters, but other than that, it is the complete polar opposite. It is a far-more traditional science fiction thriller, and a smart one at that. For lack of a better description, it is an easy movie to "like." Compare the two; 2001 is a movie to sit back and watch, to appreciate, but not necessarily enjoy. On the other hand, 2010 is far more easily digested. It's smart, but not condescending. Sure, it's not perfect. That's the risk that happens when a sequel is made for a movie that didn't need a sequel in the first place. It's worth it though, and a film I enjoyed significantly more than its predecessor.

So I wasn't much of a fan, but I can appreciate that 2001 does not require a sequel. Its unanswered questions are oddly perfect in that decision to remain unanswered. It allows viewers to wrap their head around the story as they so choose, not as the movie dictates. That's why I both liked and disliked this sequel. In the more traditional sense, 2010 builds a story in a far more linear fashion. We learn more about the HAL-9000, its background, and why it malfunctioned the way it did. Did we need those answers? No, but it's nice to see. We learn a little more about the mysterious monoliths popping up around the world. Did we need those answers? Nope once again. But necessary or not, they come around as worthwhile. It's nice to see the effort made as goofy as it sounds. I came away eternally frustrated with 2001, but I didn't have that same sentiment here in the least. Maybe that's a pity positive vote, but so be it, I'm sticking by my guns.

With a focus more on the space, science and mystery, the characters and their background can be a secondary thing here. The actors do their best to humanize their parts, but it's more a means to an end. We see how these highly trained, highly intelligent individuals respond in a hellish, life or die situation. Scheider does a fine job (as usual) as Dr. Heywood, a man looking for answers and to right a wrong. His recorded letters to his wife (Madolyn Smith Osborne) become a little tedious in an effort to humanize him, but that's a minor complaint. Lithgow plays Dr. Curnrow, the builder/designer of the original Discovery, with Balaban playing Dr. Chandra, HAL's creator, desperately trying to prove his creation did nothing wrong, the two other Americans on-board the Russian ship. Helen Mirren -- rocking an awesome Russian accent -- plays Capt. Kirbuk, the commander of the Russian ship, with Elya Baskin very good as one of the crew who bonds with Curnrow.

The moments that do work here are home runs knocked out of the park. With 16 years of improved technology, the special effects are very cool, if a little more understated than the original. Approaching Jupiter and its moons, Europa and Io, are some stunning sequences. The mid-space transfer from the Russian ship to the Discovery is similarly impressive, especially when you think about what's actually going on. '2010' has its moments of scares too, truly frightening. I've long said this in deep space reviews. You don't know what the universe truly contains. All sorts of things -- both good and bad -- are out there. Deep space could hide anything. Is it out there to help us or hurt us? The development of the monoliths certainly opens up that door. What is their ultimate purpose?

Maybe the biggest fear comes in a chilling, highly effective reappearance by Keir Dullea who played Dr. Dave Bowman in the original 2001, mysteriously disappearing in the end. His appearance halfway through the movie is genuinely startling, and the more we see, the creepier and more chilling it gets. His final line in 2001, "My God, it's full of stars!' provides much of the jumping off point here, and the impending changes his "being" implies set the tone for a genuinely creepy final hour. What awaits the rescue crew, and on a bigger level, Earth and mankind itself? I didn't love the ending, but I liked it a lot, especially the final scene. It's easier to judge these movies on a separate level. For me though, I liked the sequel significantly more than the original, even if it was vastly different movies.

2010 (1984): ***/****

The Debt

In the closing days and months of WWII, Nazi officials saw the end in sight and started to plan their escapes, retreating into new lives, knowing that their actions would eventually catch up with them. Intelligence agencies from countries around the world did their best to bring these men to justice as seen in movies like Marathon Man or The Boys from Brazil, and most recently 2010's The Debt.

It's 1997 and Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson) and David Peretz (Ciaran Hinds) have been holding onto a secret for 30 years. Now that secret might be coming out. Rachel's daughter has a written a book about her mother's exploits as Mossad agent in 1965, working with Stephan and David as part of a three-man team to bring a Nazi war criminal to justice. What they told though happened isn't the truth, and now after 30 years of inner turmoil, it may finally be time for that hidden truth to reveal itself. What will be the price? At what cost can their struggles be revealed?

A smart, well-written thriller. They seem few and far between actually arriving in theaters, don't they? Director John Madden has done it though with this thriller, crafting a story that weaves in between 1965/66 and 1997 fairly effortlessly. Early in the story, we're thrown for a loop as an audience, seeing what we believed happened only to find out later that it wasn't based in the truth. The East Berlin setting of 1965 is dark and gloomy (appropriate) with the flashback occupying much of the movie's middle portions only to bounce back to 1997. The look of the movie is great, and as a whole, it's more content in telling a human, interesting and still entertaining story than getting wrapped up in gunplay and explosions thankfully.

A surprising problem though is the division of the story between the two separate years. In the 1965 portion, Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas play Rachel, David and Stephan. All three do a fine job with their characters, Mossad agents on a nearly suicidal mission deep in Communist-run East Berlin. Worthington especially makes a positive impression, showing he's more than only an action star, and Chastain too carries herself very well. Even with the mystery though of what happened on the mission, these 1965 Berlin scenes lack a certain energy. We know some sort of twist is coming yet somehow it isn't all that interesting. There's also the always reliable, always cliched love triangle thrown into the mix, one of my all-time least favorite plot devices.

So with a story that has three main characters, we're really seeing six characters, not to mention Jesper Christensen as Dieter Vogel, the Surgeon of Birkenau, a Nazi war criminal who played a major role in the Holocaust (and loosely based on Josef Mengele). Of the two storylines, I was more interested in the 1997 plot. Mirren is one of the best actresses working in movies today, and Wilkinson is no slouch either. Hinds has the least screentime but does not disappoint either. I can't explain the differences because all the acting is above average and pretty top-notch. The more current story just came across better to me while the rest back in Berlin drags at times.

What divided many reviewers/critics was the ending after the twist and an additional surprise are thrown into the story. I for one, liked it a lot, thinking it was a very emotional fitting end for the character. There is a certain amount of viewer interpretation allowed in the ending, but this is where the debt in the title comes into play. These characters have suffered with a decision they made some 30 years back and are now forced to deal with it. The solution is no easier than the original problem, and the final scene is incredibly moving. Credit goes to composer Thomas Newman and his score, balancing the tense scenes (kidnapping Vogel in Berlin) to the quiet moments. A flawed movie in terms of story, but the acting is worth mentioning on its own.

The Debt <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Red

What do action stars do when they're past their prime?  I'm not talking about actors who happen to be in some action movies either.  We're talking rough and ready action stars always willing to mix things up if needed.  Do you age gracefully and take some supporting roles in movies you used to star in?  Do you find another gig out of the action genre?  Bruce Willis is an interesting example of this situation, the 56-year old star not the box office sure thing he used to be, but still a reliable enough star that audiences will come out to see. In 2010's Red, his character is even a variation on that idea, a man slightly past his best days (no offense, Mr. Willis, I'm a big fan) who refuses to move on. 

The first time I saw the trailer for Red, I smiled.  I couldn't help it.  This is some cast for this action-heavy popcorn flick with a dose of comedic value added for good measure.  It reminds me of a lot of movies from the 1960s and 1970s that brought together casts of huge stars that maybe just didn't shine as bright as they used to.  I don't mean any of that as a dig at this cast -- just the opposite -- but it's almost like The Expendables plus 15 or 20 years.  Loosely based on a series of three graphic novels, this movie is just a lot of fun.  Seeing half the cast together would have been worth it, but all together? We're talking can't miss, no matter how much the movie might have struggled in theaters.

A recently retired CIA agent, Frank Moses (Willis) lives in his suburban house outside Cleveland, leading a quiet, orderly, lonely and generally boring life. The one enjoyment he gets out of life is his weekly calls to his pension agent/representative, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker), with whom he clicked with right away. One night though, Frank's house is attacked by a hit squad, but he manages to escape, heading to Kansas City to find Sarah because she'll eventually be tracked down too.  Of all the dangerous jobs he pulled off, why years later is someone gunning for him and all his associates? With some help from those past associates, including crazy conspiracy theorist Marvin (John Malkovich), aging ex-agent Joe (Morgan Freeman), and killer extraordinaire Victoria (Helen Mirren), Frank goes about figuring it out. One of the CIA's top agents, Cooper (Karl Urban) is on the hunt too, trying to figure out exactly what the legendary Moses is up to.

When I see that a movie is based off a graphic novel, I'm usually pretty skeptical.  For every 300, there are a lot of really awful movies to counter with that just didn't translate well to the screen.  This is one of the exceptions.  It's good, mostly because of the cast, but more on that later.  While I liked The Expendables which I watched a few weeks back, it could have been better.  It took itself too seriously.  Not the case here because director Robert Schwentke knows how far to push it and still have fun with it. The tone is both serious while still maintaining a bit of the crazy, off the wall humor that works so well.  It's not quite tongue in cheek, but Red is close without trying too hard to be the end-all classic action comedy.

Okay, I don't care who you are, but if a cast that includes Willis, Mirren, Freeman, Malkovich, Parker and others (keep reading, next paragraph) doesn't get you interested, I don't know what to tell you.  Movies just may not be for you.  Willis plays the steely-eyed former agent to perfection, a variation on many of the action heroes he played over the last 20-plus years.  The sub-plot with Parker is pretty good too, not distracting from the main story but interesting enough it doesn't detract overall. Mirren is dead sexy as Victoria, plain and simple.  She doesn't make an appearance until almost an hour in, but she makes up for lost time. Freeman too isn't in it much, but it's Morgan Freeman.  Come on, that's not a bad thing. Malkovich is hysterical, and the main reason to see Red.  His paranoid agent was dosed LSD once a day for 11 years, and he's clearly a little off his rocker.  Physical comedy, subtle facial reactions, throwaway one-liners, he does it all, his Marvin Boggs the breakout star here.

With an ensemble like that, it's hard to go wrong, but three more supporting parts jumped out at me.  They're the type of parts that could have been thrown away, but with the right actor in the parts, they bring the movie up a notch on their own.  First, Brian Cox as Ivan, a Russian adversary turned ally in Moses' battle against the CIA. He has a past with Mirren's Victoria, but he's that relic from the Cold War who misses the old days.  His one-on-one scene with Willis discussing those days is priceless.  Second, Richard Dreyfuss as Dunning, a black market arms dealer who is involved with the past mission that now has Moses in the CIA's crosshairs.  I've always been a fan, but it's great to see Dreyfuss in full-on, evil bad guy role.  Third, Hollywood legend Ernest Borgnine (still chugging along at 90-plus) as Henry, the CIA's basement records keeper.  In just two quick scenes, he shows what makes him the legend he is.

Why did this movie struggle so badly in theaters late last summer and early fall?  I can't put my finger on it.  It's nothing new when it comes to movies, but how many new movies are particularly unique? I didn't love the movie, but I did really like it.  There are some genuinely funny, laugh out loud moments, including one of my new all-time favorite lines.  Malkovich deadpans after an epic shootout, "How about we get some pancakes?" It's a really good movie that could have been great.  Still, with a cast like this, it's impossible to pass it up.

Red <---trailer (2010): ***/****

The Long Good Friday

My past experience with British actor Bob Hoskins is a limited one.  I've never seen but know he's in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and then I liked him in a supporting part in Zulu Dawn which I reviewed earlier this year. So with a well-known and respected actor such as Hoskins, is it fair to say I think I've seen his best role of which there are many to choose from?  IMDB lists 113 titles to his name, and I've seen a grand total of two now.  Well, critics loved one performance in particular, and so did I, 1980's The Long Good Friday.

I've got to give the Brits credit when it comes to crime thrillers.  Plain and simple, they don't pull any punches in delivering gritty, realistic and often very stylish movies that translate well to audiences (often turning the movies into cult classics after their releases).  And no, these aren't the ultra-stylish movies of the last 10 or 15 years that come to mind like Guy Ritchie-directed crime capers or even one of my new favorite movies, Layer Cake.  These are movies in the dark, dank streets of England no matter how high up the food chain these characters are.  They work in the back alleys in a world filled with violence and betrayal.  Now let's allow Mr. Hoskins to get to work.

Having spent 10 years assembling a crime empire in London, Harold Shand (Hoskins) has finally put it all together, a plan that will put him at the top of the criminal underworld not only in England but possibly Europe too.  But right as he is about to close a huge deal with the American Mafia, things go haywire.  An attempted hit on his mother goes wrong, an old friend and right-hand man is stabbed to death, and another bomb in his casino somehow doesn't go off before being found.  Is someone gunning for Harold? Does someone resent the power he's acquired? Could this be the start of a gang war after years of peace? Or in a worse case scenario, is one of his own turning on him? With a deadline working against him, Harold goes on the warpath to figure out who or what is gunning for him.

Style-wise, this John Mackenzie-directed crime thriller reminded me in a lot of ways of the original Get Carter starring Michael Caine. It is dark, gritty and cynical with some expert touches of black humor thrown in for good measure.  We see the London underworld for what it is, seedy, violent and full of betrayal, not some romantic, idealized view of how cool and suave you might often think of.  Released in the U.S. in 1980, 'Friday' hit theaters in England in 1979 so on top of that low-down, gritty style, we also get a picture of that over the top, awful 1970s sense of style from the wardrobe to the sets.  It all adds up for the better though, like a time capsule dropping you in on the groovy 1970s.

While Hoskins had been visible on TV and in movies for almost nine years before this movie, his Harold Shand was his breakout role, the one that put him in the public eye.  It's a remarkable performance, full of rage and intensity coupled with genuine confusion and frustration at not knowing what's going on.  On appearances alone, Hoskins doesn't look like a star.  He's short, stocky and balding, but this is a man just boiling over with intensity that could explode at any moment.  One second, he's calm and controlled, and the next he's lashing out.  His Harold is incredibly intelligent and brave (with some hypocrisy too) but also stubborn and full of pride.  It's a bad combination for a man in power trying to hold his teetering empire together.  The whole performance is memorable, but Hoskins saves his best for last including the haunting final shot of the movie that you won't soon forget, all of it aided by Francis Monkman's quirky yet appropriate score. Listen HERE for the main theme.

What worked so well for me with this mystery within the crime thriller is that the twist is so simple in its execution and reveal.  I won't spoil it here, but the reason behind it all is out of Harold's control. That's what makes it work so well.  As to who is behind it, the supporting cast keeps you guessing.  Helen Mirren plays Victoria, Harold's girlfriend and assistant, Derek Thompson and P.H. Moriarty are Jeff and Razors, two of Harold's enforcers, Bryan Marshall is Harris, a lawyer with mob connections, Eddie Constantine and Stephen Davies are Charlie and Tony, Harold's American "business connections," and Dave King is Parky, Harold's source on the police force. Also look out for a 26-year old Pierce Brosnan in his film debut as a hired gun. 

There's nothing particularly new or different about this British crime thriller overall.  From top to bottom though, it is well-made and professional, ranging from the cool sets and filming locations to a winding story that always keeps you guessing to a cast that uniformly delivers great performances, especially Hoskins in his star-making role.  If you're curious about the movie and can't find a copy, check it out on Youtube starting with Part 1 of 11.

The Long Good Friday <---trailer (1980): ***/****  

National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Ah, the sequel, where movie studios go for what they hope is a sure thing with audiences. But with a few exceptions, like Empire Strikes Back and Godfather II, the sequels are never on par with the originals which are often enough classics in their own rights. Now I won't go as far as saying the first National Treasure movie is a classic, but it sure was entertaining. So 3 years after the original, NT: Book of Secrets came was released to even bigger business.

Looking at successful sequels, the key has to be doing just enough new stuff while keeping the spirit and casting of the original intact. 'Secrets' tries to improve on a lot of things while still dealing with a historical subject as Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) once again tries to unravel a mystery that could lead to a supposedly mythological treasure. Along with Cage, all of the cast from the original is back, something that's always nice to see. And why wouldn't they come back? It's a sure thing in terms of the $, but for whatever reason, actors/actresses always want to branch out from successful franchises.

As for the additions, director Jon Turteltaub follows the Bourne movie formula, when you have a new character, cast one of the best actors available in Hollywood. So here we get Academy Award winner Helen Mirren, Academy Award nominated Ed Harris, and always reliable Bruce Greenwood joining an already impressive cast and blending in seamlessly. These are the types of roles that will never add any awards to the trophy cases, but instead the roles that the actors are clearly having fun with. It's the type of thing that shows so clearly on-screen and helps bring the movie up a notch.

Several years since the original discovery of a huge historical treasure, Benjamin Franklin Gates (Cage) is on the touring circuit talking about his ancestor, Thomas Gates, and his involvement with the Lincoln assassination and his chance meeting with John Wilkes Booth. But at one presentation, Mitch Wilkinson (Harris) presents a missing page from Booth's diary claiming that Thomas was the architect of the assassination plot. So teaming up with sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), his dad Patrick (Jon Voight), and ex-girlfriend Abigail (Diane Kruger), Benjamin goes about proving his great-grandfather's innocence.

The trail once again takes them all over the world with pit stops in Paris, London (including sneaking into the Queen's study at Buckingham Palace), George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Washington D.C. and even Mount Rushmore. Benjamin figures the only way to prove Thomas' innocence is to find the treasure he kept from falling into Confederate hands, but some key evidence could be in the 'book of secrets,' a book passed down from President to President with essential info, things like Area 51, the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate. Hot on their trail, FBI agent Sadusky (an underused Harvey Keitel) gets involved, especially when Ben's plan involves kidnapping the President (Greenwood) at a party.

Much like the first movie, 'Secrets' moves along at a break-neck pace that never allows you to slow down and comprehend how ridiculous the whole thing is. This time around, Benjamin does seem to figure out the clues a little quicker, a little bit more outlandishly, which can be annoying and a little too coincidental for me, but not enough to take away from the enjoyment of the story.

Wearing an odd-looking toupee or some sort of hair extension, Cage reprises his role as treasure hunter Gates. Over-the-top and scenery chewing, he's at his best, including a scene in Buckingham Palace where he must make a scene to attract the attention of security. Bartha is perfect again as Riley, now trying to step out of Benjamin's shadow with his own book. Kruger unfortunately has been made into a whiny movie girlfriend, but her character is still a good fit because she counters Ben so well. Voight gets some very funny lines with Mirren as his estranged wife. The two veteran actors give a sense of history between their characters without saying much at all. As the villain, Harris isn't at his best, but come on, it's Ed Harris. He's awesome even if he was just reading a telephone book.

Comparing 'Secrets' to the original is where the problems come up. Not major problems but certainly enough to be noticed. At times, the story just feels like a rehash as we get clue, Benjamin figuring out clue, chase scene, and then finding another clue. Of course, that's not a bad thing because the first movie worked so well with that formula, but it's not great either. So it's not enough to force me to give a negative review, but at least enough to bring it down a notch, just a little notch. Still a movie that's worth seeing if for nothing else so that you're ready for National Treasure 3, due out in 2011.

National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets <----trailer (2007): ** 1/2 /****

State of Play

In a time when newspapers nationwide are going down the drain, it's interesting (and nice to see) that a movie with an impressive ensemble cast deals with the inner workings and conflicts of what goes on in a newspaper's newsroom. State of Play struggled at the box office, but hopefully it does better in rentals because director Kevin McDonald (The Last King of Scotland) has put together a strong thriller that balances the every day work of journalists with the intrigue of behind the scenes Washington D.C.

When dealing with the current state of newspapers in a movie, there's certain things that can't be avoided; the online vs. print rivalry, a good story vs. tabloid stories that might sell more papers, the morality of publishing a story, conflict of interests, and of course, big business. Will anyone let us print this story? State of Play clearly did its research in handling these subjects whether it be the look of the fictional Washington Globe's cluttered, chaotic newsroom to the rivalry between a print writer and a young blogger. It's the little things that make the movie more believable, and much easier to get into the world of what's going on.

Old-school newspaper reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is very good at what he does, but with the changing times of newspapers, he refuses to change with the technology. So when two dead bodies turn up, Cal goes to the scene for his story. Across town, a woman is killed in a subway station, or was she? It turns out the woman was an aide to Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) and as more information becomes available, she was also having an affair with Collins. His editors start to put the squeeze on Cal because during his college years he was roomate with who else? Collins.

The two cases/stories start to evolve and working with a young online writer, Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), Cal begins to accumulate a lot of evidence that the two cases are seemingly related. Collins and his aide were working on a case against PointCorp, a private corporation full of ex-military personnel who serve in the Middle East and around the world providing security. Could PointCorp have really ordered a hit on Collins' aide? Would they really go that far? So starts a twisting, turning story that kept me guessing right until the end.

Working as a team, Crowe and McAdams work well together, a journalistic Odd Couple. Crowe's Cal is wary of working with the young blogger but comes to see her as a colleague, a fellow reporter. It can be tricky making journalists' work compelling to watch because much of it is tracking down phone numbers and calling people, knocking on doors trying to get information, but with a handy montage the job is that much easier. The journalistic detective work provides much of the bulk of the story, but it never drags as a possible conspiracy unfolds.

As the Making of Documentary discusses, it would be hard not to compare this to All The President's Men, the true story of how Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein took down the Nixon administration that was turned into a movie starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. State of Play pays homage to its predecessor while putting its own spin on the story. One scene in particular jumps out as Cal hides in a parking garage from a man believed to be a PointCorp assasin. Shot among the shadows, it's a great scene that sent a chill down my back at the surprise intro of the killer. And overall, the movie has a good balance between the newspaper side and the thriller aspect without overdoing or overstaying its welcome on both.

Crowe and McAdams together leading the movie is a good example of what strong casting can do, but the supporting cast here is just as important. Helen Mirren is pitch perfect as Cameron, the Washington Globe editor who must balance selling newspapers with getting that perfect story out there. Robin Wright makes the most of a smaller part as Anne Collins, Stephen's wife who has a past with Cal also. Affleck may be a little young for the part, but he pulls it off well as the suave, sophisticated Congressman seemingly on the rise. Jason Bateman as a seedy PR guy and Jeff Daniels as a fellow representative looking to help Collins also leave a good taste in your mouth.

As a reporter for a paper here in Chicago, I couldn't help but smile when I saw this movie's trailer. Journalists as heroes saving society from the government?! Count me in! The story is an exciting one that easily brings the viewer in and keeps them involved trying to unravel those deep, dark, scary Washington DC conspiracies and mysteries. Great ensemble cast and a story based off a BBC miniseries makes this one well worth a watch.

State of Play <----trailer (2009): ***/****